space law

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

>> Yes. The trouble is, that also eliminates the incentive for investment
>> in space settlement.
>
> Not really. There is the non-interference clause and there is precedent
> for removing material and owning it.

That's not enough, and I explained why in some detail -- but you
apparently ignored it.

I'm really surprised there is any argument here. This is the space
*settlement* group. It's not the space resource-extracting group. The
OST essentially precludes settlement as it is (and certainly prevents
investment in settlement, without which, the theoretical possibility of
settlement will remain theoretical for a much longer time).

> I would like to see the exact wording that one would like, as in model
> legislation. Then that wording could be circulated and, if there is
> sufficient support to prevent things going south, the US could as for
> modifications.

I'd like to see that, too. I already sketched out what I think it
should look like.

> In any case the first step is the exact wording desired, which anyone
> can do.

Not really anyone -- it requires a lawyer to make it precise, I think.

Best,
- Joe